Re: Opposition by Mojosurf Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1886980 (class 43) – Mojo NOMAD (fancy) - in the name of Australia Hotels and Properties Limited
Case
•
[2019] ATMO 176
•11 December 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by Mojosurf Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1886980 (class 43) – Mojo NOMAD (fancy) - in the name of Australia Hotels and Properties Limited [2019] ATMO 176
[2019] ATMO 176
11 December 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Mojosurf Pty Ltd to the registration of the trade mark application number 1886980, styled "Mojo NOMAD (fancy)", in class 43, filed by Australia Hotels and Properties Limited. The opposition was heard by Kate Doherty, acting as delegate for the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the applicant's trade mark was substantially identical or deceptively similar to earlier trade marks owned by the opponent under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), whether the applicant's mark was capable of deceiving or causing confusion under section 58A, whether the applicant's mark was likely to cause confusion given the opponent's reputation under section 60, and whether the use of the mark would contravene provisions of the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth) (specifically sections 18 and 29) or the tort of passing off.
The delegate found that the ground of opposition under section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* was established. This ground relates to the likelihood of confusion arising from the opponent's reputation in its earlier marks. Having found this ground to be established, the delegate determined that the trade mark application would not proceed to registration.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the applicant's trade mark was substantially identical or deceptively similar to earlier trade marks owned by the opponent under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), whether the applicant's mark was capable of deceiving or causing confusion under section 58A, whether the applicant's mark was likely to cause confusion given the opponent's reputation under section 60, and whether the use of the mark would contravene provisions of the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth) (specifically sections 18 and 29) or the tort of passing off.
The delegate found that the ground of opposition under section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* was established. This ground relates to the likelihood of confusion arising from the opponent's reputation in its earlier marks. Having found this ground to be established, the delegate determined that the trade mark application would not proceed to registration.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Intention
-
Estoppel
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0